Adjunctive bilateral vs. unilateral or sham repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for major depressive disorder or bipolar depression: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies

双侧与单侧或假重复经颅磁刺激治疗重度抑郁症或双相抑郁症的辅助疗效:一项随机对照研究的荟萃分析

阅读:1

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Bilateral repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (brTMS) has shown promise as a therapeutic approach for depression; however, evidence from existing studies remains inconsistent. To address the concern, a meta-analysis was conducted to examine the efficacy and safety of brTMS in comparison with unilateral repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (urTMS) or sham repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (srTMS) in treating major depressive disorder (MDD) and bipolar depression (BD). METHODS: A systematic search covering publications up to May 22, 2024, was performed across four main bibliographic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and PsycINFO) to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the efficacy and safety of brTMS vs. urTMS or srTMS in patients with MDD or BD. Following Cochrane Handbook guidelines, random-effects meta-analyses were employed to derive pooled estimates for primary and secondary outcomes. RESULTS: The analysis included 20 RCTs (8 comparing brTMS to urTMS, 6 comparing brTMS to srTMS, and 6 comparing brTMS to both urTMS and srTMS), encompassing a total of 1666 participants. No significant difference was observed between brTMS and urTMS regarding study-defined response (9 RCTs, 11 study arms, n = 778; RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.83-1.72; Chi(2) = 29.76, I(2) = 66%; P = 0.34) or study-defined remission (7 RCTs, 8 study arms, n = 684; RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.87-2.12; I(2) = 57%; P = 0.18) in patients with MDD or BD. However, when compared to srTMS, brTMS demonstrated statistically significant improvements in study-defined response (10 RCTs, 12 study arms, n = 595; RR 2.69, 95% CI 1.58-4.57; Chi(2) = 22.75, I(2) = 52%; P = 0.0003) and study-defined remission (8 RCTs, 9 study arms, n = 553; RR 3.84, 95% CI 1.62-9.07; Chi(2) = 14.42, I(2) = 45%; P = 0.002). No significant differences were detected between the brTMS, urTMS, or srTMS groups regarding adverse events or treatment discontinuation rates (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The meta-analysis indicates that brTMS is an effective, safe, and well-tolerated treatment for MDD and BD but does not provide significant antidepressant advantages over urTMS. Consequently, it actually suggested that brTMS could serve as an alternative treatment strategy in cases where urTMS treatment is unsuccessful. Further large-scale studies are needed to explore its efficacy across diverse patient populations, stimulation parameters and to define its role in clinical practice.

特别声明

1、本页面内容包含部分的内容是基于公开信息的合理引用;引用内容仅为补充信息,不代表本站立场。

2、若认为本页面引用内容涉及侵权,请及时与本站联系,我们将第一时间处理。

3、其他媒体/个人如需使用本页面原创内容,需注明“来源:[生知库]”并获得授权;使用引用内容的,需自行联系原作者获得许可。

4、投稿及合作请联系:info@biocloudy.com。